Car ploughs through protesters at Charlottesville Alt-Right rally

[primalmatter]

He was from Ohio, why does that require an official statement.

He was photoed with a hate group wielding their shield. They denied that he was part of the group, but he even showed up wearing the group uniform. So while he might not be one of them, he was fine showing up and standing with them based on what they believed in. Had he not killed anyone they were more than fine with him identifying as one of them.

He was fond of Adolf Hitler, Nazis and white supremacists, so says a former teacher and several classmates. At this point if he was part of any official hate groups, or was just part of an online hate group where he found out about the protest, what difference would it make?

He even beat his mother, so we can check off prone to violence.

I didn't know the police literally had to announce what state you're from for people to believe it now.

None of that requires an official statement, unless of course you just think they're just on a picnic in Barcelona........

I for one don't care if he premeditated for days, decided 5 minutes prior, or just acted on a whim.

Rumors, would be when the alt-right tried to pin it on a liberal teen, claiming it was a false flag, before we found out who he was.

Meh admit I was waiting for the media firestorm to die down before googling him.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

There a are two issues though.
1. The kind of people who have children because they see it as a duty to their race are exactly the kind of people you don't want to breed any further.
2. Your ideas and arguments are used, 99 out of 100 times, to harm people of other races.

Another one:

I dare you to argue this without being racist or supporting racism.

1. Says who?

2. Spurrious Claim

3. People should be employed/ accepted into college/ recieve scholarships and grants based on their personal merits, not the color of their skin. See, that wasn't hard at all.

[Machismo]

I agree completely, but I'd add one thing. A country is not morally required to allow unrestricted access to their soil simply because they enjoy a comparibly high level of affluence. If, for example, Sweden were to say, we're no longer going to accept immigrants from non-nordic countries because we have a small, largely homogenous population and want to maintain its unique character, they're not necessarily being racist. They're just people in their own land setting their own terms with regards to who comes there. Clearly the US could never do this kind of thing along ethnic lines with any credibility because we're enormous and already very diverse, but we can restrict access for other reasons such as employablity, criminal background, and demonstrated willingness to assimilate.

That's the thing, they are being insular, nationalists, and likely even xenophobic in such a circumstance. They are also choosing to use force to accomplish it. Now, they may be able to argue they are more justified, since they are a very homogeneous country, but it's still the same result. It's still the use of force to mandate a culture onto everyone.

As for the last things you mention, that is the perfect example of one group forcing its culture onto others. People shouldn't have to assimilate to a culture. They should be obligated to obey the laws. Setting up laws that are specifically designed to push or limit one culture over another, even when the activity in question causes zero harm, is the quite literally forcing culture onto others.

[GennGreymane]

Mountain man's back!

[ArguesWithStrangers]

That's the thing, they are being insular, nationalists, and likely even xenophobic in such a circumstance. They are also choosing to use force to accomplish it. Now, they may be able to argue they are more justified, since they are a very homogeneous country, but it's still the same result. It's still the use of force to mandate a culture onto everyone.

As for the last things you mention, that is the perfect example of one group forcing its culture onto others. People shouldn't have to assimilate to a culture. They should be obligated to obey the laws. Setting up laws that are specifically designed to push or limit one culture over another, even when the activity in question causes zero harm, is the quite literally forcing culture onto others.

Not allowing someone into your country and expecting them to behave in a certain way when you do is no more an unjustified use of force than me not letting you into my home and expecting you to be nice to my wife if I do. People have the right to set the terms of entrance into their own lands. I don't get to demand entrance into Saudi Arabia and start dictating to them how my wife is going to dress once I get there. Now I can think less of the Saudis if I want to, but they can think less of me in return. Point is, the outsider does not get to dictate the terms.

In my example, the Swedes would not be forcing their culture on anyone. The non-nordic peoples would be free to be as non-nordic as they wish, somewhere else besides Sweden. In the American example, we lack a unified culture to preserve, but we do have a strong legal and civic framework which must be adhered to. Those who are unwilling to assimilate to that framework ought to go shopping elswhere for something more suitable to their tastes.

- - - Updated - - -

Mountain man's back!

Flight school is over. Finally......

[Machismo]

Not allowing someone into your country and expecting them to behave in a certain way when you do is no more an unjustified use of force than me not letting you into my home and expecting you to be nice to my wife if I do. People have the right to set the terms of entrance into their own lands. I don't get to demand entrance into Saudi Arabia and start dictating to them how my wife is going to dress once I get there. Now I can think less of the Saudis if I want to, but they can think less of me in return. Point is, the outsider does not get to dictate the terms.

In my example, the Swedes would not be forcing their culture on anyone. The non-nordic peoples would be free to be as non-nordic as they wish, somewhere else besides Sweden. In the American example, we lack a unified culture to preserve, but we do have a strong legal and civic framework which must be adhered to. Those who are unwilling to assimilate to that framework ought to go shopping elswhere for something more suitable to their tastes.

- - - Updated - - -



Flight school is over. Finally......

The issue is what actions you wish to restrict. If you want to tell someone that they cannot rape their children, that's a no brainer. If you are going to tell them that they cannot wear a hijab in public, that's clearly going a great deal further. The issue is exactly what actions are restricted. Everything you are citing is the use of force. Think about it this way, what happens if someone chooses not to comply with those demands? At the end of the day, it's going to involve a guy with a gun, forcing them to do what he wants. Now, if the action they don't like is harmful, like rape and murder, then that use of force is clearly justified. If it's merely about cultural norms, then that is quite literally forcing your culture onto others.

That's why I support eliminating all laws which restrict any action that does not cause harm. That way, there is no problem with cultures. If you want to live somewhere, don't harm others. If you want to assimilate culturally, great. If you do not, that is also fine.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not allowing someone into your country and expecting them to behave in a certain way when you do is no more an unjustified use of force than me not letting you into my home and expecting you to be nice to my wife if I do. People have the right to set the terms of entrance into their own lands. I don't get to demand entrance into Saudi Arabia and start dictating to them how my wife is going to dress once I get there. Now I can think less of the Saudis if I want to, but they can think less of me in return. Point is, the outsider does not get to dictate the terms.

In my example, the Swedes would not be forcing their culture on anyone. The non-nordic peoples would be free to be as non-nordic as they wish, somewhere else besides Sweden. In the American example, we lack a unified culture to preserve, but we do have a strong legal and civic framework which must be adhered to. Those who are unwilling to assimilate to that framework ought to go shopping elswhere for something more suitable to their tastes.

- - - Updated - - -



Flight school is over. Finally......

Yes, the people get to set rules for letting others into their nation. And this is a nation of 330ish million people. Many left, many right, most center, and the vast majority don't have stupid and ridiculous standards for immigration. They just simply want that person to be able to function in society, contribute to it, and not harm anyone.

Impossibly strict criteria have shown themselves to be in the VAST minority.

So yes, the people do get to choose who to let into their country. But don't confuse yourself and those like you as "The people of this country".

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Yes, the people get to set rules for letting others into their nation. And this is a nation of 330ish million people. Many left, many right, most center, and the vast majority don't have stupid and ridiculous standards for immigration. They just simply want that person to be able to function in society, contribute to it, and not harm anyone.

Impossibly strict criteria have shown themselves to be in the VAST minority.

So yes, the people do get to choose who to let into their country. But don't confuse yourself and those like you as "The people of this country".

Did you read my entire post?

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is what actions you wish to restrict. If you want to tell someone that they cannot rape their children, that's a no brainer. If you are going to tell them that they cannot wear a hijab in public, that's clearly going a great deal further. The issue is exactly what actions are restricted. Everything you are citing is the use of force. Think about it this way, what happens if someone chooses not to comply with those demands? At the end of the day, it's going to involve a guy with a gun, forcing them to do what he wants. Now, if the action they don't like is harmful, like rape and murder, then that use of force is clearly justified. If it's merely about cultural norms, then that is quite literally forcing your culture onto others.

That's why I support eliminating all laws which restrict any action that does not cause harm. That way, there is no problem with cultures. If you want to live somewhere, don't harm others. If you want to assimilate culturally, great. If you do not, that is also fine.

The consequences are either denial of entry, or deportation as appropriate. Neither constitutes a crime against humanity. Now moral/ethical discussions can certainly be had within a society over what criteria does and does not merit such an action, but that criteria is ultimately up to the society involved.

[Machismo]

Did you read my entire post?

- - - Updated - - -



The consequences are either denial of entry, or deportation as appropriate. Neither constitutes a crime against humanity. Now moral/ethical discussions can certainly be had within a society over what criteria does and does not merit such an action, but that criteria is ultimately up to the society involved.

It's not about being a crime against humanity, I didn't call it that. I said it was an attempt to force one's culture onto others. Since I believe in limited government, I will not support unnecessary governance, just because it suits the majority within a society.

[Aica]

I'd like to bring this up, as it caused me to do some research on Robert Lee. That (admittedly brief and shallow) implied that, at the very least, his post-war activities were a force for good in the USA. In relocating the statue, did the town decide that his being a general in the war far outweighed whatever good he produced afterward?

Where did the statue go, anyway?

In addition, did I miss the discussion on Kessler's press conference on August 13? Did/does anyone have any opinions on the violence that occurred here?

[Deleted]

Antifa and BLM need to start turning up like the alt-right do :

[Cthulhu 2020]

Antifa and BLM need to start turning up like the alt-right do :

Now imagine how much the Trumpkins/alt-right would flip the fuck out if a bunch of Muslims showed up dressed like that.

[Venant]

Now imagine how much the Trumpkins/alt-right would flip the fuck out if a bunch of Muslims showed up dressed like that.

Thousands of people were tweeting 'I hope Donald Trump is Assassinated' on Twitter today, do you seriously think that at this point anyone would be offended by a peaceful protest because some Muslims were carrying guns?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Thousands of people were tweeting 'I hope Donald Trump is Assassinated' on Twitter today, do you seriously think that at this point anyone would be offended by a peaceful protest because some Muslims were carrying guns?

My condolences to Trump and his family for getting bullied so hard!

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Have you SEEN these rallies?
No, the truth.

Good, everyone agrees.
Reality now kicks in: This doesn't happen.
People don't get employed because they aren't white.
People don't get a decent education because they aren't white.
Now you again.

I don't think you understand how affirmative action works.

- - - Updated - - -

Antifa and BLM need to start turning up like the alt-right do :

Just curious. How many people were shot at by these guys? Anyone?

That aside, bringing this kind of weaponry to a contentious situation is irresponsible. I have quite a few guns, and respect them enough not to use them as political props.

Furthermore, lot's of ill fitting uniforms and plate carriers on display here. Well over half of them are too out of shape to fight effectively, and most have more gear than they probably know how to use. Not really the point of the discussion, I know, but it still annoyes me.

[Zython]

Sure, Islamic terrorism is bad, but the people who oppose Islamic extremism are also to blame. After all, they're clearly at fault for radicalizing them by saying ISIS is bad. Why can't everyone just be a rational centrist like me?

[Skroe]

That aside, bringing this kind of weaponry to a contentious situation is irresponsible. I have quite a few guns, and respect them enough not to use them as political props.

Furthermore, lot's of ill fitting uniforms and plate carriers on display here. Well over half of them are too out of shape to fight effectively, and most have more gear than they probably know how to use. Not really the point of the discussion, I know, but it still annoyes me.

Because the entire American "Militia" movement is and has never been anything more than a live action role play.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I know exactly how it works.
It's no wonder that your typical "but muh race"-whiner has no clue.

Feel free to explain how a policy that specifically sets out to award work financial and education opportunities based on a person's race, is not doing those things. I'm fascinated.

[LilSaihah]

Affirmative action is needed because people like you won't hire black people.

Why wouldn't he hire black people?...

[Deleted]

Mystic Meg looks on point in hindsight : https://twitter.com/TheRickyDavila/s...23359474814977